10879136 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 13, 2012

10879136 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/879,136 06/30/2004 Hidetaka Yabuuchi YABU3002/JEK/JS 8193 23364 7590 06/13/2012 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC 625 SLATERS LANE FOURTH FLOOR ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176 EXAMINER LU, JIPING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte HIDETAKA YABUUCHI, SHIGEHARU NAKAMOTO, and MIKIO TAHARA ____________________ Appeal 2010-003059 Application 10/879,136 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003059 Application 10/879,136 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hidetaka Yabuuchi et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 23. Claims 1-22 and 24-29 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 23, reproduced below, is the only claim involved in this appeal. 23. A clothes dryer comprising: a drying chamber; a heat pump mechanism including a compressor, a heat radiator for radiating heat of a compressed coolant, a throttle unit for reducing pressure of a high-pressure coolant, and a heat absorber for absorbing heat using a low-pressure coolant, the compressor, the heat radiator, the throttle unit and the heat absorber being connected by a pipeline to allow a coolant to be circulated; an air circulation path for circulating drying air from the drying chamber through the heat absorber and the heat radiator back to the drying chamber; a blower for blowing the drying air in the air circulation path; an air introducing port serving to introduce outside air into the air circulation path; an air discharge port serving to discharge a part of the drying air to outside of the air circulation path; and a filter for filtering off lint contained in the drying air, wherein the drying chamber, the air discharge port, the filter, the air introducing port, the heat absorber and the heat radiator are sequentially disposed in that order in a direction along which the drying air is circulated, and wherein at least one of the air introducing port and the air discharge port is provided with a regulating gas inlet valve for controlling an amount of air introduced and discharged. Appeal 2010-003059 Application 10/879,136 3 Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kim US 7,073,273 Jul. 11, 2006 Inoue1 JP 60-188786 Sep. 26, 1985 Rejections The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inoue and Kim. OPINION The Examiner correctly found that Inoue discloses a clothes dryer comprising all of the elements recited in claim 23, arranged (i.e., “sequentially disposed”) as claimed, with the exception that Inoue does not disclose a filter for filtering off lint contained in the drying air. Ans. 3-4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusion that it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Kim, to provide Inoue’s clothes dryer with a filter between the air discharge port (at air exhaust damper 27) and the air introducing port (at air intake damper 28) Ans. 4. While we might not necessarily agree with the Examiner’s statement that “the only location to place a filter would be right behind the pivot point 26” (Ans. 7, emphasis added), the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why “location A” immediately downstream of the air exhaust damper 27 and immediately upstream of the air intake damper 28 would have been an obvious location 1 We derive our understanding of this reference from the English language translation by FLS, Inc. dated September 2009. The Examiner referred to this reference as “MATU” in the Answer. We refer to this reference using the last name of the first named inventor (“DESIGNER”). See Inoue Translation, p. 1. Appeal 2010-003059 Application 10/879,136 4 for the filter. Ans. 7-8 (referencing an annotated reproduction of Inoue’s figure 2 at Ans. 8). We have considered Appellants’ arguments on pages 13-17 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 2-6 of the Reply Brief, but we do not find them convincing. The fact that other locations of the filter within the air circulation duct would also be suitable for achieving the purpose of filtering out lint from clothes in the drying chamber does not persuade us that the Examiner’s reasoning is flawed or that the Examiner’s determination that the claimed location for the filter would have been obvious is incorrect. See Reply Br. 5-6 (asserting that persons of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kim places the filter at a location in which it will remove lint from air prior to the air passing the dehumidification evaporator 31, thus avoiding the potential of lint clogging the dehumidification evaporator 31). Inasmuch as the source of lint in the clothes dryer is the clothes to be dried in the drying chamber, consistent with Appellants’ assertion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any location of the filter in Inoue’s air circulation duct downstream of the drying chamber and upstream of the evaporator 15 would achieve the objective of removing lint from the air prior to the air passing the evaporator 31. There are only three possible alternatives for placement of the filter downstream of the drying chamber 17 and upstream of the evaporator 15 – (1) upstream of both the air exhaust damper 27 and the air intake damper 28, (2) downstream of the exhaust damper 27 but upstream of the air intake damper 28 (the “location A” proposed by the Examiner), and (3) downstream of both the air exhaust damper 27 and the air intake damper 28. See Inoue, fig. 2. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable Appeal 2010-003059 Application 10/879,136 5 solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). As such, even following Appellants’ reasoning, any of these three possible locations, including the claimed location downstream of the exhaust damper 27 but upstream of the air intake damper 28 (the “location A” proposed by the Examiner) would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention. For the above reasons, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in determining that the combined teachings of Inoue and Kim render obvious the subject matter of claim 23. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh